I think reviewers need to explain exactly what their criteria are on their front page before you see any numbers at all, so that readers can at least hope to expect some consistency throughout the various reviews, so we don't see different games getting rewarded and punished for the same thing, or games getting the same exact review but different numbers at the end.

The graphics/sound/controls review system made sense in the 80s and 90s when graphics/sounds/controls were advancing in huge leaps and bounds, but I feel it is now obsolete.

Nowadays graphics and sound are almost always good enough, and should only be discussed when they particularly hold a game back or particularly push a game forward.  Now we just throw 10s at shiny bloomy HD games and throw 7s at Wii games.  Wii games are getting punished for not being HD, as if Wii gamers give a shit about HD.  Wii gamers bought Wiis for something new and are getting told their games are crap based on things they knowingly opted out of.

Handheld games have it the worst, as the DS, the PSP, and the GBA seem to be punished with bad scores across the board, simply for being handheld games.  Reviewers seem to hate the concept of gaming on the go.  I can grab a portable gaming device (tm) out of my pocket and play everything from Tetris to Nintendogs to God of War in short bursts on a bus or train, or my personal favorite, local wireless gaming in long lines.  Even though  the portability and local wireless gaming are advantages that console gaming is not capable of, reviewers seem to look at all handheld games as the inferior little bitch siblings of console games.  Handheld gamers bought handheld games for portable gaming and are being told their games are crap based on things they knowingly opted out of.

These are just a few ideas.  Anybody have any others?

Maybe, just maybe those games that reviewers review poorly on the Wii are actually poorly made games.

This is a good start. I know Grey Acumen has a few good ideas. I don't know how to fix it but I know that it not working like it used to, what with the 2 very different types of consoles we have, plus handhelds.

Mark games mainly on gameplay, and then go into graphics etc. However, I must say, if the gameplay is shallow and tiresome after only a short while, then the game will suffer

EDIT: with graphics, it should be comparison with that console, and also what devs can get out of the console (so GoW should get 10, even if a PS3 game gets 9, cause the PS3 is more advanced)

Ditch scores entirely. Just have reviewers write the pluses and minuses in text form, and let the readers decide if the game will appeal to them or not.

- Rate the game for what it is. Some games have no story, some are focused on it. Judge accordingly. This applies to graphical capabilities, game difficulty, almost everything.
- Ditch the numbering system.
- If a game is story-based, rate the story like you would a book or movie.
- Ditch breaking down each category into a numerical system that makes no sense to anything other than a tweaked out ferret.
- If a game is geared toward children or casuals, judge it as such. After all, Pixar has made a killing by creating movies that work for everyone (similar to Mario platformers, really). Don't play SSBB and review it like you would GTA IV.

Most importantly:

- Stop reviewing games like they're 14 years old. These people are journalists, fer Christssakes. Many of them have college degrees. At one point or another, they have been forced to read or watch quality entertainment. Use that knowledge.

In short, stop pandering. That's about the best way I can put it.

I say get rid of score subsets like the sound was this and the graphics where that and just give a rating with numerals only. This way 5 out 5 just means it really good.

You know kinda like movie reviews.

Review systems are flawed because they are subjective. I reviewer A hates Wii games cos they aren't HD then he's going to hand out lower marks for a game compared to someone who loves the Wii for example.

Graphics and Sound are still important things to mark on as they contribute to the enjoyment of the game whether that be a DS, Wii or PS3 game.

Control mechanism isn't something that gets marked on enough in my opinion -The Wii could score higher here than many multi button PS3 or 360 games which may balance out the lower graphics marks handed out if the game is compared to PS3 and 360 games.

The two main marking criteria in my opinion should be whether a game is fun to play by it's intended audience and whether it represents value for money.

Whatever criteria that are adopted however will never escape the subjectiveness aspect and will therefore never be perfect.

Reviews are untrustable from every site or mag. look at Lost Odyssey. They all said it was a good game, and the reason it was marked down was because it did nothing new and was to traditional. Well if you twaddle over to RPG Gamer website you will see what the real verdict is on RPG's. For instance FF12 got good review scores. But the majority of obssesive RPG players on this site thought it was terrible. And guess what LO is thought to be a breath of fresh air. Funny how fans of a genre differ so much from review sites.

Wii Sports, a generation defining game, has an average review score under 80. The game that is absolutely key to the Wii's success is just barely average? There is strong evidence that something is wrong with the way review are currently handled.